Questions about tort law!

1. F
It is well established that directness is an element of trepass. Trespass is also actionable per se, which means that the action does not require proof that damages were suffered.

2. F
Obviously, contract law is capable of correcting breach of contractual obligations.

3. F (maybe)
This is a bit controversial and unclear, but the English case of Letang v Cooper held that negligence is an unintentional tort; for intentional tort, the action of trespass is the only resort. However, I have read Hong Kong cases in which a judge (Cheung J if my memory is correct) expressed a contrary view in dicta.

4. F
Tortious liability is imposed by operation of law rather than by agreement. For example, if you enter into a contract that you are negligent, you are not negligent notwithstanding the contract unless you actually commit the tort.

5. T
Criminal: beyond reasonable doubt
Tort: on balance of probabilities

6. F (maybe)
As far as I know, there are no rights which can properly be described as absolute.

7. T
Intentionally hitting a guy in the face would constitute battery in tort and common assault in criminal law.

8. T
Generally, yes. Tort law is concerned with restoring the plaintiff to the position as if the tort has not been committed. It is unlike criminal law, which is more concerned with retribution and maybe rehabilitation.

9. I don't know the position in NSW, but in HK the limitation is 6 years for torts (generally) and 3 years for actions concerning personal injuries.

10. T

有一發明品,我投資十萬,個發明家話給我10%,我想make 合約,要點先可以有效,想有心人幫助.可call me.pls email to me ,my email is [email protected] you